Mumbai Court January 1944 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Superintendent of Stamps Vs. Breul and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Bom325; (1944)46BOMLR686
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This matter comes before us by way of reference submitted by the Superintendent of Stamps under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act of 1899.2. The facts are not in dispute.... Messrs. Breul & Co., through their attorneys, for warded to the Collector of Bombay in January, 1943, an unstamped documentbear in date January 7, 1943, and applied under Section 31 of the Indian Stamp Act for theopinion of the Collector as to the duty, if any, which was chargeable thereon.3. As will hereafter appear, the document submitted follows the form of contract set out in the Appendix to the by-laws of the East India Cotton Association, Limited and we have been told by counsel that this reference is in the nature of a test case.4. When the document was submitted to the Collector, he entertained doubtswhether it attracted stamp duty, by reason of the fact that in February, 1942, the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate acquitted three accused persons charged withhaving failed to st...
Rachappa Totappa Vs. Madivalawa Rachappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom63; (1944)46BOMLR683
Lokur, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs for a partition and possession of their two-sixth share in a land and a house which had been kept undivided when they separated from their father and step-brothers in the year 1931-32. Defendant No. 3 is the father of the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 4 to 6, and defendant No. 7 is the wife of defendant No. 3. Defendant No. 3 was adopted into a different family and possessed considerable ancestral property including the property in suit. He had a brother named Rachappa in his natural family, and prior to Rachappa's marriage, defendant No. 3 made a gift of the property in suit to Rachap'pa's bride Basava by a registered deed of gift dated August 17, 1916. Basava was then a minor and on her behalf her father took possession of the property as her guardian. Basava died in 1922 and the property devolved upon her husband Rachappa as her heir. Rachappa is dead and the property is now in the possession of his widow defendan...
Shripad Vs. Sanikatta Co-operative Salt Sale Society
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-05-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom82; (1944)46BOMLR745
Lokur, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit to recover Rs. 663-8-0 due on a promissory note of Rs. 620 passed by the defendants to plaintiff No. 1 on January 3, 1934. The defendants contended that the promissory note was void as a part of its consideration was the withdrawal of a non-compoundable criminal case then pending against their brother Vishnu. The trial Court held that it was so and dismissed the suit. In appeal the learned District Judge took a different view and awarded the plaintiffs' claim with costs.2. The facts of this case which are either admitted or held proved may be briefly stated. Plaintiff No. 2 is the Sanikatta Co-operative Salt Sale Society, Ltd.,Sanikatta, and plaintiff No. 1 is its secretary. In July, 1933, the defendants' brother Vishnu entered into1 a contract with the Society to transport the Society's salt to the salt depots at different places and he was entriftted with seventeen consignments for delivery between July and October, 1933. In October, 1933,...
Dhondo Khando Vs. Waman Balwant
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-04-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom126; (1944)46BOMLR737
Rajadhyaksha, J.1. This is an appeal against an order passed by the District Judge of Belgaum in civil appeal No. 79 of 1939 confirming the order of the Second Class Subordinate Judge of Chikodi in an application under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, in regular darkhast No. 377 of 1938. The circumstances that gave rise to this second appeal are as follows :-One Balwant Sakharam Naik had filed regular suit No. 195 of 1928 against one Dhondo Khando Naik and two others for partition of his alleged half share in Revision Survey No. 23 of Chinchani, for mesne profits of Rs. 150 accrued due before the date of the suit and for future mesne profits from the date of the suit. The suit was dismissed with costs. He preferred appeal No. 315 of 1931 in the District Court of Belgaum against the decree passed by the Subordinate Judge of Chikodi. But pending the disposal of the appeal, Balwant Sakharam died. His two sons, Chintaman and Waman, were then brought on record as his legal representa...
Lallubhai Motiram Vs. Laxmishankar Ambalal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-03-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom51; (1944)46BOMLR679
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. These are two appeals from the District Judge of Kaira. The action, which gives rise to them, concerns the copyright in a picture drawn and coloured by the plaintiff in November, 1933, of Shri Ranchhodraiji's Diwali Shringar.2. In 1935 the plaintiff filed a suit against defendant No. 1 alleging the infringement of the plaintiff's copyright in the said picture by a picture of defendant No. 1. Some confusion has occurred in the Court below, the repercussions of which have followed this appeal, with regard to the numbering of the exhibits, there being in fact two exhibits Not 19. In order to avoid any, further confusion I propose to refer to the plaintiff's picture made in November, 1933, as. the ' 1933 picture,' and the first defendant's picture as the ' 1935 picture,' and to the other picture with which this suit is concerned, as the ' 1939 picture.' The original exhibits will be marked accordingly.3. The former suit was compromised, and by the consent decree ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›